Friedrich Ebert Conference in Beirut:No to "Critical Dialogues" with
anti-Semites

Thomas Uwer

Only some weeks ago the European Union held a
Seminar on Anti-Semitism in Brussels, where German Foreign Minister
Josef Fischer strongly condemned any kind of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitic thought – the seminar said – is a threat to civil
society, and Europeans are to be aware that the growth of
anti-Semitic resentments is a danger not only for Jews. That sounds
well – and it's true: anti-Semitic thought IS a threat and European
countries HAVE to be aware of it. But this is only half the truth.

Anti-Semitism isn't merely an
ideology, it is not a misperception or misunderstanding, something
which we only have to speak about – quite the opposite is true:
anti-Semitism is a practice, it is something people do and it is a
matter of fact for the citizens of Israel who live under the
permanent threat of terrorist attacks. As a practice, anti-Semitism
is an integral part of policies at least in the Middle East and most
of the Islamic countries – where it is not only shared by
minorities, but supported and disseminated by governments. This is
why simply condemning anti-Semitism is not enough. It needs more
than some awareness programs to fight anti-Semitic thought and
action.

Exactly the same day Josef Fischer held his speech in
Brussels, another conference took place that also somehow dealt with
anti-Semitism – but in a very special way. The German
Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation, a foundation directly linked to the
governing Social-democratic Party of Germany, held a conference in
Beirut, organized in close cooperation with a "studies and
documentation centre" of the Islamist Hezbollah. The list of
participants of this conference (under the title »The Islamic World
and Europe; From Dialogue towards Understanding«) sounds like a "Who
is Who" of the new Islamist scene. Besides Skeikh Naeem Quasim from
the leadership of Hizbollah, radicals like the notorious Tariq
Ramadan, from Geneva, Azzam al-Tamimi, a Hamas supporter from the
British Muslim Council, Jamal al-Banna, from the Muslim-Brotherhood
Egypt or Munir Shafiq, a former leftist who converted to Islam and a
guiding intellectual of the Palestinian Islamic Djihad, took part to
discuss about matters like "Occupation and Resistance" or "Democracy
– a flexible concept". All of the named promote an Islamist
"resistance" against Israel or - as they call it - the "Zionist
Entity". It is Munir Shafiq who regularly declares that terrorism is
a legitimate and integral part of the "resistance against
occupation" and its is Azzam al-Tamimi who acknowledged that every
Muslim should take part in the "uprise" against Zionism and that
these "efforts" should be directed also against the Jewish
communities abroad to end their support for Israel.

It is not simply a coincidence that this conference took place while
Josef Fischer publicly condemned Anti-Semitism in Brussels, but it
is a part of the German policy towards Israel and the Region that
always wants to keep in touch with "both sides", as they say. Or, as
the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation announced after critique came from
several institutions: The Beirut-Conference is part of the concept
of Critical Dialogue.

One of
the most disturbing things with this conference was that the
Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation did not even feel that a dialogue with
these extremists is - at least - "problematic". To avoid public
meetings with extremists like the ones from Beirut could be regarded
as a kind of common sense until then. Contacts with and sympathies
for anti-Semitic extremists were more for the backrooms than for the
public – if something like that became known, the usual reaction was
to dissociate. This has changed. The Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation
simply stated that a Critical Dialogue is needed especially with
those forces we disagree with. The conference, a press announcement
of the Foundation said, was also aimed on showing, that there are
"legitimate security interests" of Israel. Of course – not one of
the panels dealt with Israel's security concerns or the anti-Semitic
terror in the region. What the phrase „legitimate security interest
of Israel" really means is: There are illegitimate too. And these
illegitimate policies of Israel – this is the essence of the
dialogue - are a reasoned cause of the violence in the Middle East.
This is exactly what the wording Critical Dialogue means.

Obviously, the Dialogue with the leaders of radical
nationalist and Islamist parties and governments is not an adequate
instrument to change the Middle East to something better. The
results of a decade of Critical Dialogue with regimes and radical
movements are extremely poor. Nothing has changed to better in Iran
and in Iraq; Saddam Hussein would still stay in power if the
Americans would have not preferred the regime change to the
Dialogue. This is not merely a moral argument, but a practical one.
Without recognizing that anti-Semitism is one of the key problems of
that very region one will never ever change the Middle East to
something better. A region, where anti-Semitism is not anymore a
more or less abstract "threat to civil societies" but has already
poisoned the Arab world. It is virulent in nearly all Islamic
societies and it is a kind of common sense shared by most of the
Arab governments, disseminated and multiplicated through state owned
TV-stations and newspapers. It is even more: It is a practice
directed against Israel and its citizens – AND it is used by Arab
regimes as an instrument against anyone demanding freedom rights and
better living conditions. The anti-Semitic type of Middle Eastern
Conspiracy Theories is part of the ideological fundament of
dictatorship in Arab States. It is closely linked not only to their
policies towards Israel but also to the way these states treat their
own people. It is linked to the Arab Authoritarianism that is based
on radical nationalist and Islamic thought.

The most frustrating fact is that these Partners of
the Critical Dialogue are responsible for the political stagnation
that has left the Arab Middle East out in the world race to
democratize. Today Iraq is the only Arab country in that region
where a change of government took place during the past three
decades. Torture and the cruelest kinds of punishment are common
practices in all of these countries, where most of the women and
girls are illiterate and 60% of the few books available are only
dealing with Islam. Anyone demanding a free press, freedom of speech
or better living conditions is regarded a Zionist agent. While most
of the Arab governments – as well as their opposition – argue that
this situation of oppression and stagnation is resulting from
external factors – Israel and America – the opposite is obviously
true. For them, anti-Semitism also is an instrument to stay in power
and to keep the paradigms of Arab rule untouched – paradigms that
need to be changed.

As long as
European governments and especially Germany do not end the so called
Critical Dialogue with those who promote and support anti-Semitic
and Islamist militias and terrorist attacks on Israel, their
declarations on Anti-Semitism will remain fruitless. If Mr. Fischer
really means what he says and if he wants to fight Anti-Semitism -
then he has to stop the Dialogue and Understanding.

Don't deal with the promoters of anti-Semitic
terrorism! Show them, that they are not accepted! Don't meet them,
don't speak to them, don't sign any agreements, don't ask them for
understanding - but help the people of the Middle East to finally
get rid of them!

Speech held
by Thomas Uwer, WADI e. V. (www.wadinet.de),
on a demonstration against anti-Semitism in Europe during the OSCE
Conference in Berlin, April 28th, 2004